Ellen Tauscher

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a crucial piece of legislation designed to prevent abuse and abduction of our nation's children. As the mother of an eight-year-old, I know all too well the efforts we go through as parents to keep our children safe and protected. We worry about the times children may be unsupervised or find themselves in unfamiliar situations. In my district, there is a civic group called Smart Kids--Safe Kids that works to educate our children about the signs of abuse and who to talk to about abuse. Schools and community groups are trying to fight back against the horrors of child abuse and abduction, but unfortunately, they just do not have the resources they need to do so effectively. The Smart Kids--Safe Kids Act, which I am introducing with my Republican colleague Kevin Brady, will make specific child safety programs eligible for federal grants already available to school based organizations. These programs will teach students from preschool through grade 12 the skills to identify and cope with potentially dangerous and threatening situations. And it gives students guidance to encourage them to seek advice for anxiety, threats of abuse and actual abuse. When our children know the rules, they are smart kids; and Smart Kids can be Safe kids.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Domestic Violence Awareness Month is a national campaign created to focus public awareness on the problem of domestic violence. As we are all too aware, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages 15 and 44 in the United States. More women are injured as a result of domestic violence than are injured in car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined. Women of all cultures, races, occupations, income levels, and ages are battered by husbands, boyfriends, and partners. Batterers are not restricted to low-income or unemployed men. Approximately one-third of the men who undergo counseling for battering are professional men who are well-respected in their jobs and communities. These include doctors, psychologists, ministers, and business executives. Domestic violence also affects children. Half who live in violent homes experience some form of physical abuse. Unfortunately, one-third of boys who grow up in violent homes become batterers themselves, simply perpetuating the cycle. I am proud that in my district, victims of domestic violence have been able to turn to Battered Women's Alternative. For the past 21 years, this wonderful organization has provided a safe haven for those women who have taken the critical first step and escaped from their homes. Battered Women's Alternative serves more than 15,500 women annually through its 24-hour crisis line, emergency shelter, safe homes, traditional housing, legal advocacy, counseling, employment assistance and placement programs. Battered Women's Alternative also conducts educational programs in the hopes of preventing future instances of domestic violence, many of which are targeted toward abusive men as well as younger children. In recognition of the important work done by Battered Women's Alternatives every month of the year, I urge you all to actively participate in the many scheduled activities and programs planned all over the country that work toward the elimination of personal and institutional violence against women. Only a coordinated community effort can put a stop to this heinous crime and I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing this important month.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2436, the so-called ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act.'' While I whole- heartedly agree that acts of violence against a pregnant woman deserve severe punishment, this bill does absolutely nothing to further that goal. Ironically, these pregnant women are not mentioned in the actual legislative text. Instead, this bill goes so far as to redefine the fetus as a fully-independent person separate from the mother. This is a definition that even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch opponent of Roe v. Wade, opposed. Instead, I believe we must do more to protect pregnant mothers, and am therefore supporting the ``Motherhood Protection Act,'' introduced by Representative Lofgren. This measure provides increased penalties for crimes against pregnant women. This common-sense legislation would provide true protections for pregnant women without undermining the Constitutionally-protected right to choose or attempting to change the definitions of ``personhood'' under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. This measure makes sense, and achieves the stated goals of the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lofgren substitute and vote against H.R. 2436.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for those nice comments. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the defense authorization bill and urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit and vote for passage of the bill. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, will begin to prepare our Nation for the national security challenges of the 21st Century. It makes vital investment in military equipment, improves the readiness of our forces, and provides the military personnel with the pay and retirement benefits that they greatly deserve. The defense authorization bill also dramatically reorganizes the Department of Energy. As we have seen in recent months, the Department of Energy is beset by management failure, bureaucratic morass, and a lack of accountability. Secretary Richardson has made some important improvements, but it is clear that the Department must be reorganized. This DOE reorganization plan is not perfect, but we cannot maintain the status quo. Let us begin the process of reorganization today and work to make improvements as we move forward. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and for the defense authorization bill.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues a disease known as scleroderma that an estimated 500,000 Americans currently suffer from. Even though more people have this disease than have Muscular Dystrophy, Multiple Sclerosis or Cystic Fibrosis, Scleroderma, unfortunately, is not that well known by the public. Scleroderma literally means ``hard skin'' and is a chronic disorder that leads to the overproduction of collagen in the body's connective tissue. It can also effect internal organs, causing severe damage and serious complications to the body's digestive, circulatory and immune system. Scleroderma is not contagious or directly hereditary nor is it gender, race or age specific. However, 80% of its victims are women, most in the prime of their lives. Unfortunately, there is no known cause or cure for scleroderma. I would like to commend the Pleasanton Lions Club within the 10th Congressional District for taking it upon themselves to raise awareness about Scleroderma. Thanks to a request being made by the Pleasanton Lions Club, the Pleasanton City Council on May 18 of this year proclaimed the month of June as ``Scleroderma Awareness Month.'' Also in conjunction with downtown events in Plesanton, the Pleasanton Lions Club sponsors a booth offering information about the disease that also involves members from the Scleroderma Support Group in the Bay Area who share their stories with the public. The Pleasanton Lions Club has also established informational displays along with literature at the Pleasanton Library, the Lion's Club visitor/ticket office, the Valleycare Library, Valleycare Mental Center, the Pleasanton Senior Center and the Livermore Veterans Hospital. On June 11, the Pleasanton Lions Club sponsored their 11th annual golf tournamaent and dinner to help raise money for scleroderma research. I have been told that the tournament and the subsequent dinner were a roaring success. It is important that scleroderma be given the attention required to raise awareness and the funds needed to fight this chronic disease. The Pleasanton Lions Club have played a major role in this effort and I thank them for it. I hope others will follow their lead and get the word out to the public about why we need to fight scleroderma.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this measure, the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999, but to also express some concerns I have with the balance of this legislation. While I believe this bill is an important tool for the public to learn about the costs and benefits of federal regulations, I fear that it may prove extremely costly, in both time and resources, and could lead to delays in regulations designed to protect worker safety, human health, and the environment. Everyone understands the impact of federal regulatory programs on our economy--they have helped Americans, with the help of American businesses and industry, to clean the air, protect wetlands, promote safe transportation, ensure healthy and abundant food supplies, improve workplace safety, and promote human health. However, each of these important steps forward comes with a cost. While many of those costs are justified, it is important that the federal government work closely with the public to develop regulations which can achieve these goals reasonably, quickly, and efficiently. H.R. 1074 may help empower Americans with new information to improve public participation and help regulators make better decisions. For the past 2 years, I have been involved in a bi-partisan working group of Members of Congress to develop broad, consensus-based legislation in the area of environmental regulations. I remain committed to this because I believe all Americans share essentially the same goals. The environmentalists I know want to ensure that our economy continues to grow and that Americans continue to prosper financially. And there's not a CEO I know who doesn't cherish the time spent in the great outdoors enjoying fresh air and clean water. In short, we all want clean neighborhoods, and we all want good jobs. Broadening the information available to the public will improve this situation. Causing delay in formulating regulations will not. Americans must work together toward success. I believe the Regulatory Right-to- Know Act may help increase participation in our federal government's rule-making process. We in Congress, therefore, must commit to providing the necessary support to ensure that the Executive branch can continue its work effectively and efficiently. H.R. 1074 must not be an excuse to drain scarce agency resources or undermine the health and safety of Americans and our precious environment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my heartfelt thanks to my constituent and friend Lt. Col. Thomas S. Black, the commander of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area in Dublin, CA. Lieutenant Colonel Black assumed command of Camp Parks on August 5, 1997, and has been a tremendous asset to both the Army Reservist and the surrounding community. I, and everyone who served with him at Camp Parks, owe him a huge debt of gratitude. The bonds between Camp Parks and the surrounding community have always been strong. However, Lieutenant Colonel Black took the relationship to a whole new level with his extensive use of local contractors, his partnership with the city of Dublin on creating new soccer fields and his privatization of the camp's water and wastewater utility system. Camp Parks has truly become one of the Tri-Valley's greatest treasures. Lieutenant Colonel Black has had a long and prestigious career in the U.S. military since his enlistment in the California National Guard in 1973. He has served in southern California, Germany, Georgia, and Texas, and along the way has earned the U.S. Army's Meritorious Service Medal, the U.S. Army's Commendation Medal, the U.S. Army's Achievement Medal, and various other service awards and ribbons. I, like everyone else at Camp Parks and the surrounding community, am very sorry to see him leave. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have truly enjoyed working with him on issues important to the well-being of Camp Parks and the U.S. Army Reservist. And as the U.S. Representative of the 10th Congressional District, I have truly enjoyed the friendship I have developed with Lieutenant Colonel Black over the last 2 years. I wish he, his wife Kathy, and his sons the best at his new assignment in Japan. Thank you again Lieutenant Colonel Black for your leadership, your support, and your service to this Nation.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees on the Defense Authorization bill to insist on language in the House bill articulating the goals and objectives of the air campaign in Yugoslavia. Our military forces with our NATO allies have done a tremendous job in Kosovo. They have ended Yugoslav aggression against its own people, forced the withdrawal of Yugoslav military forces from Kosovo, reached an agreement with Yugoslavia on an international military presence in Kosovo, and started the safe return of Kosovo refugees. The success we have achieved in Kosovo could not have been achieved without strong leadership from President Clinton and his senior military advisers. In particular, General Wesley Clark distinguished himself by conducting an air campaign that suffered not a single combat casualty. I will be introducing legislation shortly, Mr. Speaker, to award General Clark the Congressional Gold Medal for his efforts. Or Nation's goals and objectives have been achieved with unparalleled success. We owe our military personnel a debt of gratitude for their service. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct conferees.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, last week's failure by this Republican- led Congress to deliver commonsense, practical gun safety legislation disappointed working families and law enforcement officials of both parties in my suburban district in San Francisco's East Bay. I would like to call attention to the reaction of a Republican law enforcement official in my district. Saying he had enough, Alameda County Sheriff Charles Plummer, a life long Republican, switched his party registration away from the Republican party. These are Sheriff Plummer's words: I was coming back from a meeting Friday and listening to a couple of Republicans on the radio talking about gun rights saying this legislation is not needed. I went ahead and changed my registration after being a Republican for 47 years. Sheriff Plummer said that gun safety, and I quote, ``has to be solved nationally . . . Even in the hunting country where I was raised, my friends think if someone needs an AK-47 to kill a deer they are not much of a sportsman.'' Mr. Speaker, I could not have said it better myself.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wamp amendment. We all agree that children should not be exposed to music and movies that depict violence or sexual images. But the answer is not to overregulate industries that are already making positive efforts to police themselves. The motion picture industry has a well-established rating system for warning parents about the content of movies. The television networks have recently begun a similar rating practice. Parents are increasingly making use of the V-chip to keep harmful material away from their kids, and virtually every major recording company complies with voluntary label warnings on their recording that contain material that is inappropriate for children. Establishing a labeling system with the muscle of the Federal government at the regulatory helm is not the way to help parents protect their kids. Instead, we should continue to work constructively with the entertainment industry to improve ways for parents to limit their children's exposure to harmful material. Our number one priority must be to protect our children and empower parents. The Wamp amendment provides the wrong approach. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the McCarthy amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a parent and a legislator to oppose the Hyde amendment. While the Hyde amendment intends to establish a standard to regulate children's exposure to violence, I believe this legislation will neither protect children nor help parents shield their children from harm. This amendment's overly broad attempts to regulate portrayals of violence raises serious constitutional questions that may result in this law being tied up in the courts for years. While the court battles are waged, not one child will be protected nor one parent's peace of mind enhanced. We need to truly empower parents with common sense protective measures, such as the V-chip, establish TV ratings, strict enforcement of age requirements at movie theaters, and software filters for the Internet. We all agree our children should be shielded from violence and that parents should have the tools to protect their children. I would rather the industry spend the time in developing these tools than fighting protracted legal battles. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hyde amendment and to support common sense and effective measures that will truly protect our children.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) in a colloquy. Of particular concern to me and my constituents is the need to ensure basic radar coverage for smaller airports like the one in Livermore, California, my district, which is one of the busiest general aviation airports in the state. Yet Livermore's technology is nothing more advanced than a simple pair of binoculars. This situation is particularly problematic during periods of poor weather when the safety of both those in the air and living on the ground is of primary concern. Mr. Chairman, I ask the committee to continue its work on promoting air safety across the country, not just at major airports but at smaller ones like at Livermore, which are desperately in need of radar coverage.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for his response. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1000.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express some concerns that I have with the McIntyre Amendment, which is included in the en bloc amendment offered by Mr. Spence. The McIntyre Amendment would direct DOE laboratories to make available a range of expedited dispute resolution procedures to resolve differences with private sector entities. The goal of this amendment is good. Given the nature of technology transfer, and the demands of bringing new technologies to the marketplace in a timely manner, it is important that disputes are settled quickly and amicably. But I am worried that this amendment's focus on expedited resolutions would sometimes exclude more appropriate forums for the resolution of disputes. I also believe we need to keep in mind the interest of the American taxpayer and not subject federally funded institutions to dispute resolution procedures that fail to protect their interests. In an effort to provide a speedy resolution to disagreements, I am concerned that this amendment may unintentionally fail to ensure access to the appropriate venue for resolution. There is no evidence, Mr. Chairman, that system-wide deficiencies exist in the federal technology transfer process. Indeed, technology transfer laws have made it possible for important federally developed technologies to reach the commercial marketplace. It is important that we not threaten the success we have had in technology transfer by making changes in the process that might restrict the ability of our laboratories to participate. I appreciate the dialogue that Mr. McIntyre and I have had on this amendment in recent days and I look forward to working with him to address my concerns as this legislation moves forward.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I guess I am a little confused about the subcommittee chairman's assertion that the military discriminates right now against people that are too tall and too other things when in fact I think what we would actually call those would be minimum standards for qualification to qualify to be a good soldier, airmen, Marine. The question I have is: Is there such a thing as being too female, because this is a specific issue for American fighting men and women, and this is about American women who have the right to have the right to choose as American citizens, but because they are on military duty overseas our colleagues are suggesting that they forfeit that right. I think that is discriminatory, I think that is inappropriate, and I urge my colleagues to support the Sanchez amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) released their report last month, I feared amendments like this one offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) today. This amendment is nothing more than a misdirected overreaction. Instead of making constructive changes to improve our counterintelligence operations, this amendment blindly cuts off our labs to foreign scientists, scientists who work in many nonclassified, nonweapons-oriented areas of the labs. Specifically, this amendment fails to distinguish between the smuggling of our classified national secrets by American citizens from nonclassified disarmament-oriented exchanges with countries such as Russia. Among our country's greatest national security threat is the spread of nuclear chemical and biological weapons. In February I spent a week in Moscow, meeting with U.S. and Russian scientists who administer programs designed to stop Russian scientists and their nuclear materials from going to countries such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Given the State of the Russian economy and the fact that Russia's uranium stockpiles are not locked down, we have no choice but to engage our Russian counterparts on a scientist-to-scientist level. The Ryun amendment would end this cooperative effort. It would prevent Russian scientists from visiting our laboratories for 2 years and would severely damage U.S.-Russian relations. Mr. Chairman, for those who are concerned about visits to our national labs, let me say just this. Earlier today, as part of the Cox and Dicks amendment, this House took steps that would reasonably address the need to protect classified materials at our national labs from foreign visitors. It would provide for the lifting of a moratorium when DOE's Director of Counterintelligence, with the concurrence of the FBI Director, determines that the proper counterintelligence measures are in place. Let us embrace this measured approach offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). Let us reject the reactionary approach before use. Let us not blindly shut down vital national security programs that have nothing to do with classified secrets.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). As I understood it, the Costello amendment would subject Department of Energy laboratory contractors to financial penalties for violations of security procedures. I agree with my colleague that laboratory contractors must be held accountable for security lapses by their employees. Such accountability is necessary if we are to ensure that the security procedures that we put in place are properly administered. Protecting our Nation's secrets must be a top priority of our national laboratories. I am pleased that the House just voted to adopt the Cox- Dicks amendment that enhances security at the labs. I am concerned, however, that the amendment of the gentleman makes no distinction between laboratory contractors that are for-profit organizations and those that are not-for-profit organizations. There are key differences between how these two types of organizations function. For example, subjecting the University of California, which is a public institution, to the same fines and penalties as a for-profit corporation would potentially penalize all of the tax-paying residents of the State of California for the operations of a Federal facility in pursuit of a national mission. I believe that in leveling civil penalties against these contractors, we must account for the differences inherent in their organizations. I am hopeful that this legislation moves forward and as it moves forward we can continue to work together to address concerns about applying civil penalties against not-for-profit laboratory contractors.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Cox-Dicks amendment. Working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and my other colleagues has exemplified the bipartisan spirit and cooperation that the nation deserves in formulating a sensible response to the security deficiencies at our national laboratories. The report that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) released last month was startling in that it exposed 20 years of systemic failure in our counterintelligence operation that spanned several administrations. Our intelligence agencies failed to embrace new technologies and our counterintelligence units failed to protect our secrets above all else. Our gravest error has been the lack of an individual clearly responsible for protecting our Nation's secrets. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, will take us a long way in solving the structural deficiencies in our counterintelligence operation and improving security at the laboratories. It establishes a structural chain of command with ultimate authority for protecting our secrets with the Secretary of Energy and it gives the Secretary the tools to do it, such as polygraph examination of scientists with access to the most sensitive information and increased financial penalties for employees who mishandle classified material. We are fortunate that Energy Secretary Richardson has stepped forward to assume that responsibility. This legislation provides him with the authority and tools he needs to manage the job. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. For the past 3 weeks, Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan group of Members has worked to develop a comprehensive, responsible approach to addressing our concerns over insufficient security at the national laboratories. This group included the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and me. Incredibly, the Committee on Rules has refused to allow this amendment to be considered by the House. Instead, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has decided to turn our Nation's security into a partisan issue. It has rejected a sincere bipartisan effort to improve our counterintelligence programs and protect the secrets at our labs. The Dicks amendment, Mr. Speaker, would put into law many of the measures Energy Secretary Richardson has pledged to undertake. We would provide the Secretary the authority to implement polygraph examinations of scientists with access to the most sensitive information. We would increase financial penalties for employees who mishandle classified material, provide whistleblower protection for employees who report misdeeds and clarify that the Energy Secretary has the authority to order the examination of computers in offices owned by the Federal Government. Most importantly, our legislation would establish direct lines of counterintelligence authority at the Department of Energy with the ultimate responsibility resting with the Secretary. The greatest error in our counterintelligence efforts has been a lack of any clear individual responsible for protecting our Nation's secrets. Energy Secretary Richardson has stepped forward to assume that responsibility, and our legislation would provide him the authority he needs to manage the job. The Committee on Rules' decision to bar this amendment from consideration is misguided. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague from California, Mr. Brian Bilbray, to introduce a bill to rectify an unjust Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ruling which adversely affected our nation's veterans. In a 1962 IRS ruling, an allowance was made for the deduction of flight training expenses from a veteran's income tax even if veterans' benefits were received to pay the training costs. Subsequently, many veterans used their G.I. benefits to go to flight school and correctly deducted these expenses on their income tax forms. In 1980, the IRS revised its 1962 ruling by terminating this tax deduction in Revenue Ruling 80-173. However, the IRS decided to apply this new ruling retroactively, which meant the veterans who had utilized this deduction would now have to pay back their tax refund to the IRS. This decision was detrimental to the taxpayers who took the deduction as instructed, and therefore simply unfair. Naturally, these taxpayers took their case to court. In April 1985, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Baker v. United States, considered this issue and sided with the taxpayer. The IRS did not appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Consequently, the veterans who fought the battle in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals received refunds of the tax they had been required to pay. At the same time, however, veterans who suffered from the retroactive IRS ruling but who fell outside the purview of that court decision were not given refunds. Similarly situated veterans were therefore being treated differently by the IRS due to geographic location. This bipartisan legislation will permit those veterans who settled with the IRS on less favorable terms or were precluded from having the IRS consider their claims because of the time limits in the law, a one- time opportunity to file for a refund. This way the remaining veterans and the IRS would have a second chance to come to a much more equitable settlement. Nationwide, this legislation will affect the approximately 200 remaining veterans who have still not received an equitable settlement from the IRS--roughly \1/3\ of these veterans reside in the State of California. Basically this legislation boils down to restoring a sense of fairness. We need to do what is right and put an end to this inequitable situation once and for all. These veterans stood up for America--it's time we stand up for them.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the American Handgun Standards Act so we can finally eliminate junk guns from our streets by demanding that domestically produced handguns meet common sense consumer product protections standards. This bill is companion legislation to S. 193 introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer. I find it unbelievable that we subject toy guns to strict safety regulations, but we do not apply quality and safety standards to real handguns. There are currently no quality and safety standards in place for domestically produced firearms. In fact, domestically produced handguns are specifically exempted from oversight by the Consumer Product Safety Commission; however, imported handguns are subject to quality and safety standards. This disparity in standards had led to the creation of a high-volume market for domestically manufactured junk guns. Saturday night specials or junk guns are defined as non-sporting, low quality handguns with a barrel length of under three inches. These guns are not favored by sportsmen because their short barrels make them inaccurate and their low quality of construction make them dangerous and unreliable. These guns are favored by criminals because they are cheap and easy to conceal. The American Handgun Standards Act, will amend current law to define a ``junk gun'' as any handgun which does not meet the standard imposed on imported handguns. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, in 1996 approximately 242 million firearms were either available for sale or were possessed by civilians in the United States. This total includes 72 million handguns, 76 million rifles and 64 million shotguns. Most guns available for sale in the US are produced domestically. We need to make sure these guns are subject to very strict safety standards. My legislation will make it unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a junk gun that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. I urge my colleagues to support this bicarmeral, commonsense legislation.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bankruptcy Reform Act because it is based upon a simple principle of personal responsibility. Those who buy on credit should be required to pay their bills. Our current bankruptcy system does not hold people to that standard. In 1998, a record 1.4 million Americans went to court to have their debts erased. Some were hard-working Americans who could not afford to pay their bills and needed bankruptcy protection, but many others took advantage of a failed bankruptcy system that encourages people to avoid paying their debts. When people who cannot pay their debts do not, middle class Americans pick up the tab because companies charge higher prices to make up for the losses. Working families in America have a hard enough time paying their own bills. They should not have to needlessly pay someone else's. The Bankruptcy Reform Act makes the right changes to the law by requiring those who can reasonably pay at least 25 percent of their debt to do so. Lower income Americans who truly cannot get out from mountains of debt will continue to have an escape hatch. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to again stand for the reasonable principle of personal responsibility and pass this important legislation.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Bankruptcy Reform Act would ensure that Americans who can reasonably repay some of their debt will do so. It is based on the principle of personal responsibility and intended to stem the tide of American bankruptcy filings. The Hyde-Conyers amendment flies in the face of that fundamental principle. Instead of establishing a reasonable standard of living expenses, as the bill does, this amendment would give judges broad authority to determine, quote/unquote, reasonably necessary expenses. This definition is ambiguous. It provides a loophole for bankruptcy filers to avoid repayment and maintains one of the deficiencies of the current system. This legislation recognizes not everyone who files for bankruptcy is able to repay their debts but it employs a reasonable standard to make that determination. The Hyde-Conyers amendment would remove that reasonableness from the bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hyde- Conyers amendment and support the Bankruptcy Reform Act.